NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M vs NVIDIA Quadro 6000 Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro 6000 and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M are both end-of-life graphics solutions, but they represent opposite ends of the design spectrum. The Quadro 6000 is a professional workstation card from 2010, built on the Fermi architecture with a massive 529 mm² die and a 204 W power envelope. The GTX 960M is a mobile consumer chip from 2015, using the Maxwell architecture on a 148 mm² die with a 75 W TDP. The benchmark data shows a clear, if narrow, overall winner in raw compute, but the two cards serve entirely different purposes based on their feature sets and physical characteristics.

The Verdict

Based strictly on the benchmark data, the GeForce GTX 960M is the better choice for raw computational throughput. It wins the only head-to-head benchmark available, Geekbench OpenCL, with a score of 11,045 against the Quadro 6000’s 9,846. That is a 10.9% advantage for the GTX 960M, a decisive margin that places it ahead in the only directly comparable metric. The GTX 960M also has a higher average benchmark score of 9,645 across its two tests (OpenCL and Vulkan), while the Quadro 6000’s single OpenCL score of 9,846 stands as its only average. However, the Quadro 6000 has a marginally better percentile ranking (47th) versus the GTX 960M’s 46th, indicating that its lone score places it slightly higher relative to all GPUs in the database.

For a professional workstation user who relies on OpenCL compute, the data is not flattering to the older Quadro. The GTX 960M outperforms it by nearly 11% in the same test, despite being a mobile part with a quarter of the TDP. Yet, the Quadro 6000 retains relevance in specific legacy scenarios: it offers 6 GB of VRAM versus 4 GB, a 384-bit memory bus versus 128-bit, and dual-slot workstation form factor with professional display outputs (DVI, DisplayPort, S-Video). The GTX 960M is an MXM module with no standalone display outputs, being "Portable Device Dependent." If you need a drop-in workstation card for an older system, the Quadro 6000 is the only physical option. But for pure performance per watt and raw OpenCL speed, the GTX 960M is the clear data-driven winner.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are separated by five years of architectural evolution. The Quadro 6000 uses the Fermi architecture (chip GF100), manufactured on TSMC’s 40 nm process. It packs 3,100 million transistors into a 529 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 5.9 million per mm². The GTX 960M uses the Maxwell architecture (chip GM107), built on a 28 nm process with 1,870 million transistors in a 148 mm² die, achieving a much higher density of 12.6 million per mm². This process shrink explains how the GTX 960M delivers higher performance with far fewer transistors.

The compute resources differ fundamentally. The Quadro 6000 has 448 shading units, 56 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 48 raster operation units (ROPs). The GTX 960M has 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and only 16 ROPs. Despite having fewer TMUs and ROPs, the GTX 960M achieves higher pixel and texture rates: 18.82 GPixel/s and 47.04 GTexel/s versus the Quadro’s 16.07 GPixel/s and 32.14 GTexel/s. This is entirely due to clock speeds. The GTX 960M has base and boost clocks of 1097 MHz and 1176 MHz respectively, while the Quadro 6000 has no listed base or boost clock, only a memory clock of 747 MHz (3 Gbps effective). The GTX 960M’s memory runs at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective), contributing to a different bandwidth profile.

Both cards support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but the GTX 960M adds Vulkan 1.4 support, which the Quadro 6000 lacks entirely. The GTX 960M also has a second benchmark in Vulkan (score 8,245), a test the Quadro cannot run. The production status is end-of-life for both, but their release dates differ: the Quadro 6000 launched in December 2010, while the GTX 960M launched in March 2015.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher OpenCL benchmark score?

A: The GeForce GTX 960M scores 11,045 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the Quadro 6000 scores 9,846. The GTX 960M wins by 10.9%.

Q: Does the Quadro 6000 have more memory?

A: Yes. The Quadro 6000 has 6 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 384-bit bus, providing 143.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The GTX 960M has 4 GB on a 128-bit bus, with 80.19 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which card supports Vulkan?

A: Only the GeForce GTX 960M supports Vulkan (version 1.4). The Quadro 6000 has no Vulkan support listed, though both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6.

Q: What is the TDP difference?

A: The Quadro 6000 has a TDP of 204 W and requires dual-slot cooling with 1x 6-pin and 1x 8-pin power connectors. The GTX 960M has a TDP of 75 W and uses an MXM module with no power connectors.

Q: Which card is better for modern API workloads?

A: The GTX 960M is the only one of the two with Vulkan support (1.4), and it also has a higher OpenCL score. The Quadro 6000 is limited to older APIs despite matching OpenGL 4.6.

Q: How do their transistor densities compare?

A: The GTX 960M has a density of 12.6 million transistors per mm², more than double the Quadro 6000’s 5.9 million per mm², reflecting the newer 28 nm process versus 40 nm.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every measurable specification, reflecting their different roles.

• Process Node: Quadro 6000 uses 40 nm; GTX 960M uses 28 nm.
• Transistors: Quadro 6000 has 3,100 million; GTX 960M has 1,870 million.
• Die Size: Quadro 6000 is 529 mm²; GTX 960M is 148 mm².
• Transistor Density: Quadro 6000 is 5.9M / mm²; GTX 960M is 12.6M / mm².
• Base Clock: Quadro 6000 has none listed; GTX 960M has 1097 MHz.
• Boost Clock: Quadro 6000 has none listed; GTX 960M has 1176 MHz.
• Memory Clock: Quadro 6000 is 747 MHz (3 Gbps effective); GTX 960M is 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective).
• Memory Size: Quadro 6000 has 6 GB; GTX 960M has 4 GB.
• Memory Bus Width: Quadro 6000 is 384-bit; GTX 960M is 128-bit.
• Memory Bandwidth: Quadro 6000 is 143.4 GB/s; GTX 960M is 80.19 GB/s.
• Shading Units: Quadro 6000 has 448; GTX 960M has 640.
• TMUs: Quadro 6000 has 56; GTX 960M has 40.
• ROPs: Quadro 6000 has 48; GTX 960M has 16.
• Pixel Rate: Quadro 6000 is 16.07 GPixel/s; GTX 960M is 18.82 GPixel/s.
• Texture Rate: Quadro 6000 is 32.14 GTexel/s; GTX 960M is 47.04 GTexel/s.
• FP32: Quadro 6000 is 1,027.7 GFLOPS; GTX 960M is 1.505 TFLOPS.
• TDP: Quadro 6000 is 204 W; GTX 960M is 75 W.
• Slot Width: Quadro 6000 is dual-slot; GTX 960M is MXM module.
• Power Connectors: Quadro 6000 has 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin; GTX 960M has none.
• Suggested PSU: Quadro 6000 is 550 W; GTX 960M has none listed.
• Bus Interface: Quadro 6000 is PCIe 2.0 x16; GTX 960M is MXM-B (3.0).
• Display Outputs: Quadro 6000 has 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort, 1x S-Video; GTX 960M is portable device dependent.
• Vulkan Support: Quadro 6000 has none; GTX 960M has 1.4.
• Release Date: Quadro 6000 is December 2010; GTX 960M is March 2015.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available is Geekbench OpenCL. The GTX 960M scores 11,045, while the Quadro 6000 scores 9,846. The GTX 960M wins with a deltaPct of -10.9% (negative indicating the Quadro is behind). This 1,199-point difference is significant in compute workloads. The GTX 960M achieves this despite having less than half the memory bandwidth (80.19 GB/s versus 143.4 GB/s) and a much narrower 128-bit bus. The Maxwell architecture’s efficiency is evident: it delivers higher FP32 throughput (1.505 TFLOPS versus 1,027.7 GFLOPS) with a quarter of the TDP (75 W versus 204 W).

The Quadro 6000’s nearest rivals in the database include the Quadro M2000M (score 9,832, deltaPct 0.1) and the GeForce GTX 1070 (score 9,780, deltaPct 0.7), meaning it sits slightly above those in OpenCL. The GTX 960M’s nearest rivals include the Quadro K5000 (score 9,637, deltaPct 0.1) and the Quadro P4000 (score 9,665, deltaPct -0.2), showing it is closely grouped with professional parts. The GTX 960M also runs a Vulkan benchmark, scoring 8,245, which is a capability the Quadro 6000 cannot match due to lack of Vulkan support. Across the two benchmarks, the GTX 960M’s average is 9,645, slightly below the Quadro 6000’s single 9,846, but that average is dragged down by the Vulkan score.

Where Each One Wins

The GeForce GTX 960M wins decisively in raw compute and modern API support. Its OpenCL score is 10.9% higher, and it is the only card with Vulkan 1.4 support. It also has a much higher texture rate (47.04 GTexel/s versus 32.14 GTexel/s) and pixel rate (18.82 GPixel/s versus 16.07 GPixel/s), making it faster for fill-rate-bound tasks. Its 640 shading units outperform the Quadro’s 448, and its FP32 output of 1.505 TFLOPS is nearly 46% higher than the Quadro’s 1,027.7 GFLOPS. The GTX 960M achieves all of this at 75 W TDP, making it vastly more power-efficient.

The Quadro 6000 wins in memory capacity and bandwidth. Its 6 GB of VRAM on a 384-bit bus delivers 143.4 GB/s, nearly double the GTX 960M’s 80.19 GB/s. This is crucial for workloads with large datasets that exceed 4 GB, such as certain professional visualizations or compute buffers. The Quadro also has more ROPs (48 versus 16), which can benefit certain rasterization-heavy tasks, despite its lower pixel rate. Its physical form factor is a dual-slot PCIe card with dedicated display outputs (DVI, DisplayPort, S-Video), making it suitable for legacy workstation chassis. The Quadro’s 47th percentile ranking versus the GTX 960M’s 46th suggests it edges out the mobile card in overall standing, though this is based on a single benchmark.

In practical terms, the GTX 960M is the better compute engine for OpenCL and Vulkan workloads, especially where power is a constraint. The Quadro 6000 is the better choice for large-memory tasks and for systems requiring a standard PCIe slot with professional display connectivity. The data does not support the Quadro as a faster card, but it does support it as a more capable memory subsystem. Choose based on workload: speed and efficiency favor the GTX 960M; capacity and legacy compatibility favor the Quadro 6000.